Is The Register known for objectively reporting facts? If so, I have fundamentally misunderstood it for a quarter century.

▲

JumpCrisscross 3 hours ago | parent | next [-]

> objectively reporting facts?

I believe so. They're not known for neutrally reporting them, which is different.

▲

antonvs 3 hours ago | parent [-]

Do Ireland's data centers objectively "guzzle" electricity?

I don't have any problem with The Register, but reporting laden with value-judging adjectives is not objective.

▲

teamonkey 2 hours ago | parent [-]

Objectively, yes. It means to consume excessive or plentiful amounts of something, and 23% of Ireland’s electricity generation capability is objectively an excessive and plentiful amount.

	▲	hunterpayne an hour ago \| parent \| next [-]
		Objectively no, 23% of nothing is nothing. Ireland has no industry. Their grid is smaller than a major city's grid. That this is 23% says a lot more about the size of the Irish grid and their lack of industry than it does about how much energy a datacenter uses.
	▲	antonvs an hour ago \| parent \| prev [-]
		The characterization as “excessive” is subjective. If you disagree, what are your objective criteria for making that claim? You fundamentally can’t give a correct answer to that, because it requires defining a threshold, and that’s subjective. If people seriously think claims like this are “objective”, I weep for our collective understanding of reality.

▲

alephnerd 3 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

They basically re-report press releases. I've dealt with The Register as well as their sister publications back when I was still in product (especially during shudder RSA).

The Reg keeps a snarky tone, but immediately becomes deferential once a vendor begins a content campaign with them.

They also operated a bot account on HN for years that was spamming Register articles for almost 3 years and accumulated 66K karma until I and a couple others complained about it.